I agree with your general premise, however I don't think just because something is against our nature is disgraceful. If you want to be really natural, you probably don't want monogamy, or even consensual sex (if you're a male). I doubt Grok had a romantic courtship with Ms. Grok before the sex. I don't know how common rape was back in the pre-historic times, but I doubt an alpha Grok in his tribe asked permission before ravaging the female of his choice. Certainly they had sexual urges like us, and considering the males were naturally stronger than the females, there must have been a good deal of forced sex going on.

I find moral vegetarianism/veganism to be "disgraceful" because it absolutely sends the message: "If you eat meat, you are not as good as me." To be a moral vegetarian/vegan, you are saying that people that do not ignore human nature are not good. Every single ethical vegetarian/vegan on planet Earth looks down upon people that eat meat. They must - it is a requirement of being a moral vegetarian/vegan. They could be your absolute closest lifelong friend. They still look down upon you for existing as a human should exist and not finding the willpower to resist nature at the expense of your own health and well-being. The lifestyle comes with a built-in self-righteous attitude. You have to have a self-righteous God complex to believe you are above Mother Nature.

Those that do it for health reasons, I can't really blame them. They're just severely misinformed and I feel bad for them. They're worth saving.

Note that this is much different from purchasing quality-sourced meats. CAFOs are horrible places. If you have qualms eating conventional meats, I can completely understand that. However, doing your best to purchase meat from animals raised and slaughtered humanly is a far car from looking down upon human nature as some kind of ethical superior.

You're kind of stretching it there. Sure, there are plenty of vegetarians/vegans with the "I'm better than a meat eater" attitude. However, there are also those that don't consume animals for moral reasons without condemning those that do - I've met one personally. You can be moral about something on a non-judgemental personal level.

Also, as I previously exemplified, why is it bad to be "above Mother Nature" in some cases? Sex is the perfect example of why it is indeed better to be above nature. Almost every man out there would love to have sex with tons of women of his choice - it's simply in our nature. My animal instincts want me to spread my DNA as many times as possible, they don't want me to ask permission and get consent. Do I have a "self-righteous God complex" if I think I am above this?

Modern dairy operations will impregnate the dairy cows with artificial insemination and often they will do it while the cow is still lactating, which is supposed to actually be really bad for the hormone profile of the resulting milk.

No, it is normal for a cow to be nursing a calf when she is bred back. They have a long gestation that is not demanding until near the end. I have beef cows right now that are both bred and still feeding their previous calves, though I'd rather they'd wean them at this point. Reason being I'd like them to fatten out a bit before they calve again. This is because they don't get supplement feed like a milk cow does.

If you did t milk a cow when bred you'd end up milking them 3 or less months a year. They'd get fat.